Good complaints handling enables swift resolution Background Ms M instructed her service provider in respect of a personal injury matter, following a car accident. Ms M was concerned that it took the service provider four and a half years to pursue her claim, especially as it was a straightforward claim and the other side accepted liability. As a result, Ms M complained to the service provider saying she wanted the matter settled, but also that she did not think their 25% success fee was fair, given the time taken. Complaints Ms M raised two main aspects of complaint: Delay and failure to progress; and Communication, as she said the service provider had failed to keep her informed. The service provider gave a substantive and timely response to Ms M’s complaint, recognising both delay (including a failure to progress) and poor communication. They offered £300 to recognise the impact of their service failing on Ms M. The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach We reviewed Ms M’s complaint and took the view that as the offer of £300 was in our category for a significant remedy, it was a reasonable remedy, being in line with what LeO would be likely to direct should all the issues of complaint be upheld. Ms M did not agree as she wanted a costs reduction. However, as there was no impact on the value of the service provider’s work, our view was that a payment for the emotional impact of the service failing was a reasonable remedy. The complaint was closed under Scheme Rule 5.7(c) as a ‘reasonable offer made’. As the complaint was resolved in early resolution, no case fee was payable. LeO Insights A full and detailed response, addressing all the complaints and clearly identifying service failings, means a complaint is more likely to be suitable for early resolution. Using LeO’s remedies guidance is more likely to lead to reasonable offers being made at first tier. Where there is no impact on the value of the service provider’s service, a costs-based remedy is less likely.
Poor complaints handling and lack of clarity lengthens complaint resolution Background Mr N instructed the service provider in respect of a house purchase. Following completion, it took more than 12 months to register the purchase. Mr N complained to the service provider because of the time taken, but also because they did not keep him informed. In particular, Mr N also raised the fact that the service provider’s complaints handling had been poor. They did not address his points in sufficient detail, which led in large part to his decision to escalate his complaint to LeO. Complaints Mr N raised the following areas of complaint: Delay in registering the property; Poor communication as the firm did not provide updates; and Poor complaints handling. The service provider did provide an email response to Mr N. However, Mr N was concerned that they did not provide a chronology of the matter, or issue a formal letter of response to his complaint. The service provider did not accept that there were any service failings in its responses to Mr N’s complaints. The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach We reviewed Mr N’s complaint and, as there was no clear explanation of the events that led to registration taking so long, we decided that the complaint was not suitable for early resolution. The complaint was passed to in-depth investigation and progressed all the way through LeO’s process to a final ombudsman’s decision. Our investigation showed that the service provider had failed to reply to a requisition made by the Land Registry which contributed to the time taken to register the property. The evidence also showed that the service provider had not kept Mr N informed. As a result, the ombudsman upheld the complaints and directed a remedy of £350. As this complaint went all the way through LeO’s process, and as a service failing was identified, a case fee was payable. LeO Insights Whilst there is no requirement to produce chronologies, they can show that a service provider’s service has been reasonable or highlight gaps which may then lead to a finding of poor service, and enable service providers to make reasonable offers. We would expect to see service providers provide reasonable updates, even where they are not proactively working on a matter (e.g. when a property is awaiting registration), and a failure to do so is likely to lead to a finding of poor service. Identifying periods of delay which the firm has caused, and highlighting any communication failings in a final response, as well as offering a reasonable remedy where one is appropriate, maximises the chances of a complaint being resolved in early resolution.
Good service, complaints handling and engagement with LeO quickens resolution Background Miss T instructed the service provider in respect of a property purchase. As is usual in conveyancing transactions, the service provider gave Miss T advice on the purchase in a report on title. However, she decided not to proceed with the purchase following advice on a clause relating to the title. Miss T raised concerns with the service provider, believing they could have advised of the issue sooner than they did. Complaints Miss T raised a number of issues with the service provider, in particular: The service provider delayed in providing advice on the clause; The service provider delayed in sharing responses to enquiries; and That the service provider tried to mislead her into paying additional costs. The service provider gave a clear, and timely, response to Miss T’s complaint. They also explained why the approach they had taken was in line with standard procedures and processes. The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach We reviewed Miss T’s complaint on receipt and noted that the service provider had provided advice on the clause, and the responses to the enquiries in their report on title. On the basis that it is standard practice for service providers to provide advice on issues that affect a title in their report on title, we took the view that there was no unreasonable delay and the complaint was unlikely to be upheld and therefore lacked any reasonable prospects of success. We also considered that it was reasonable for the service provider to offer to do extra work to resolve the issue, should Miss T want to continue with the purchase, she was not therefore misled into paying any additional fees. As the service provided was demonstrably reasonable, the complaint was dismissed by an Ombudsman at early resolution. As the complaint was dealt with at early resolution, no case fee was payable. LeO Insights If LeO can establish that the service provided was reasonable, or in line with standard practice from the information provided in the complaint and final response, the complaint may be suitable for early resolution. At early resolution, LeO may request one or two pieces of evidence to support a conclusion that we are unlikely to uphold a complaint and can therefore dismiss as having no reasonable prospects of success. Promptly providing this information increases the chances of early resolution.
